Delhi High Court
Sandeep Kumar & Ors. vs Delhi Fire Service & Ors. on 23 May, 2014
Author: Gita Mittal
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1888/2014 & CM No.3944/2014
% Date of decision: 23rd May, 2014
SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Dr. M.Y. Khan, Adv.
versus
DELHI FIRE SERVICE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Zubeda Begum,
Standing Counsel (GNCTD)
with Ms. Sana Ansari, Adv.
for R-1&2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioners have also laid a challenge to the order dated
10th January, 2014 passed in T.A,No.12 and 13 of 2013 by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench.
2. By way of these applications, the petitioners had challenged
the rejection of their candidature for appointment to the post of Fire
Operator pursuant to the advertisement No.1/2009 issued by the
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB). As per the
advertisement, respondent no.1 notified the following essential
qualification for Fire Operator:-
"Essential Qualifications : (i) Matric Pass from a
WP(C) No.1888/2014 page 1 of 5
recognized institute/Board or equivalent.
(ii) Should possess valid license of driving heavy
duty vehicles.
(iii) Should qualify Physical Endurance Test (in
accordance to CFO, Delhi's Order
No.F.2/DFS/HQ/03/521 dted 27.05.2008) (Please see
physical endurance test, prescribed for Fire Operator,
mentioned below). Driving Test and Written Test
as prescribed by the Chief Fire Officer."
3. The advertisement thus prescribed the physical endurance
test, driving test and a written test for the candidates. It is
undisputed that the applicants successfully undertook the physical
endurance test as well as written test but have been declared as not
having secured the prescribed parameters for the driving skill test.
4. Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioners assailed the same
by way of the application before the Central Administrative
Tribunal.
5. The respondents filed a counter affidavit reiterating that the
driving skill test was a qualifying test as per the recruitment rules
and the candidates would be selected for the post as per merit
position in the main examination conducted on 20th - 23rd August,
2009 subject to their successfully clearing the physical endurance
test. So far as the conduct of the driving test and the evaluation of
the candidates is concerned, the respondents have made the
following disclosures with regard to the manner in which the
evaluation was effected as well as the performance of the
WP(C) No.1888/2014 page 2 of 5
petitioners: - (Para 5,6,7 and 8 page 44 and 45)
"5. That the Driving Test consisted of two parts-
theory (40 marks) and practical (100 marks). There
was no negative marking. 60% was the qualifying
marks for each of theory and practical. It is pertinent
to mention here that there was nowhere mentioned
that the candidates are required to obtain a minimum
33% marks in aggregate to qualify in the DST.
Minimum qualifying 33% marks was mentioned for
PET as prescribed by Chief Fire Officer. In the PET
test the candidates were required to obtain minimum
33% marks in three events (not tests) i.e. Long Jump,
High Jump and 80 mtr. Run separately in order to
qualify in PET.
6. That the gradation pattern for the Driving Skill
Test is as under:
i. Grade A'(91%-100%) : EXCELLENT
ii. Grade B'' (80%-90%) : VERY GOOD
iii. Grade C'(70%-79%) : GOOD
iv. Grade D'(60%-69%) : PASS
v. Grade E' or F(0%-59%) : FAIL
* Grade was considered on the basis of overall
performance of theory and practical.
** 40% weightage was given to theory and 60%
weightage was given to practical.
*** Pass marks in theory was 60% and pass marks in
practical was 60%.
7. That the final result processed on the basis of
performance of the candidates in the Part- II (Main)
examination and qualifying in the Physical Endurance
Test (PET) and the Driving Skill Test (DST). These
WP(C) No.1888/2014 page 3 of 5
tests were of qualifying nature only. The last
qualifying candidate in different categories obtained
107/200 marks in UR category, 95/200 marks in OBC
category and 70/200 marks in SC category and also
qualified in the PET and DST.
8. That since the petitioners failed to qualify the
Driving Skill Test and their candidature for the post
of Fire Operator was rejected. It is evident from the
report of the Evaluation Board as detailed under:
Marks Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner
obtained No. 1 (Roll No. 2 (Roll No. 3 (Roll No. 4 (Roll
in DST No No No No
00334281) 00323002) 00323873) 00328340)
Marks
(MM- 40)
Marks
(MM-
100)
(%)
Grade F E (or F) E (or F) F
Result Fail Fail Fail Fail
(Pass/Fail)
6. The petitioners have challenged the prescription of the
gradation so far as driving skill was concerned by the respondents
contending that the same tantamounts to changing the rules after
the selection process had commenced. The Tribunal has held that
assigning the yardstick of a numerical value being given to the
driving skill with the help of experts in the field cannot be faulted.
It has been held that the same was rational, universal and a certain
WP(C) No.1888/2014 page 4 of 5
methodology which was formulated in public interest so that
ultimate justice results to all the candidates who would then be
measured on the same yardstick.
7. We find no infirmity in the observations of the Tribunal to
the effect that the universal standards have been adopted for
holding the driving skill test of the candidates.
8. We find that the petitioners have made vague allegations to
the effect that the respondents are knowingly manipulating the
result with ulterior motive and preventing employment to the
candidates who are approaching them through the backdoor and
equally vague allegations of corruption in the department has been
made in a later part of the writ petition. No specific allegations
against any particular person or authority with the respondent has
been made. Such allegation cannot support the challenge of the
petitioners in the present case.
9. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this writ petition
which is hereby dismissed.
(GITA MITTAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPA SHARMA)
JUDGE
MAY 23, 2014
mk
WP(C) No.1888/2014 page 5 of 5
